Libertarian socialism

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Libertarian socialism seems anarchist but calls itself socialism. Anyone have an explanation for why?

[Redmau5]

Because no one has a monopoly on the word socialism. Different groups define it in different ways.

[ComradeOm]

Socialism is an umbrella term that can be used to describe almost any movement left of centre.

[Delta]

It is both anarchism and socialism. Advocates want the means of production to be in the hands of the members of the community, but recognize that people can only truly own the means of production if they don't have a state hanging over their heads.

[More Fire for the People]

Libertarian socialism is a catch-all phrase for those who reject ‘authoritarian’ organization. This would include both anarchists and those who advocate a state based upon libertarian organization.

[bezdomni]

It's a nonsense word used to define Marxist-Leninists as somehow automatically "authoritarian".

Nobody has a monopoly on libertarian socialism. I am both a Marxist-Leninist and a social libertarian, as are nearly all Marxist-Leninists.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 05:12 pm
It's a nonsense word used to define Marxist-Leninists as somehow automatically "authoritarian".

Nobody has a monopoly on libertarian socialism. I am both a Marxist-Leninist and a social libertarian, as are nearly all Marxist-Leninists.
Leninism is inherently authoritarian against the working class à la Lenin’s conception of class consciousness. For Lenin, class consciousness is ‘endowed’ by intellectuals upon the oppressed. And for Leninists, sometimes endowment means getting beat with the people’s stick.

[bezdomni]

Leninism is inherently authoritarian against the working class à la Lenin’s conception of class consciousness. For Lenin, class consciousness is ‘endowed’ by intellectuals upon the oppressed. And for Leninists, sometimes endowment means getting beat with the people’s stick.

No, class consciousness arises naturally due to material conditions. What Lenin have you been reading?


“The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight."
-Engels, quoted by Lenin in State and Revolution

The state obviously can't go away when the proletariat is being ruled by "intellectuals", and at no point have I ever seen Lenin write that the proletariat should be oppressed by "intellectuals". Do you even know what class-consciousness means?

What happens if there is an anarchist revolution and I don't want to be an anarchist? Are you going to convince me with love and flowers?

[More Fire for the People]

No, class consciousness arises naturally due to material conditions. What Lenin have you been reading?
The Lenin of What is to be done? The Lenin who advocated the creation of ‘vanguard party’ of sympathizing advocates of the working class separated from the day-to-day struggles of the maligned.


What happens if there is an anarchist revolution and I don't want to be an anarchist? Are you going to convince me with love and flowers?
For one, I’m not an anarchist. A revolution is an authoritarian situation, but the rogue authoritarianism of the oppressed is directed against the ruling class. For instance, the revolutionaries of ’56 and ’68 wielded their weapons against the bureaucrats but the internal politics of the working class remained open and libertarian.

[bezdomni]

The Lenin of What is to be done?
WITBD has gotta be read in a historical context.


The Lenin who advocated the creation of ‘vanguard party’ of sympathizing advocates of the working class separated from the day-to-day struggles of the maligned.


Where does Lenin say "We should organize a vanguard party of non-workers to sympathize with the workers and pretend to represent their interests."

In fact, I think the Soviet policy of not paying government officials any higher than the wage of an average worker kind of disproves whatever point you are trying to make about government officials not having anything to do with the workers.


For one, I’m not an anarchist.
My mistake.


A revolution is an authoritarian situation, but the rogue authoritarianism of the oppressed is directed against the ruling class.

Revolutions are used to put the working class in power over the ruling class by any means necessary. Revolution is about as libertarian as the bullet, but the main purpose, the best way to achieve liberty and freedom is to eliminate the problems that cause oppression - class society. Anarchists fail to do this, thus it really isn't libertarian.

[BreadBros]

WITBD has gotta be read in a historical context.

:lol: Quoted for truth.


Where does Lenin say "We should organize a vanguard party of non-workers to sympathize with the workers and pretend to represent their interests."

Strawman. They don't have to "pretend", they honestly do think they are the representation of the working class. However, just because you think something is true, does not mean it is so. Its a basic facet of most Leninist parties that the party must include a trained cadre that functions primarily in their role as party organizers.


In fact, I think the Soviet policy of not paying government officials any higher than the wage of an average worker kind of disproves whatever point you are trying to make about government officials not having anything to do with the workers.

How do you define "salary". Maybe their official salary. The beuracratic class had greater access to luxury commodities than did the rest of society in the USSR.


Revolutions are used to put the working class in power over the ruling class by any means necessary. Revolution is about as libertarian as the bullet, but the main purpose, the best way to achieve liberty and freedom is to eliminate the problems that cause oppression - class society. Anarchists fail to do this, thus it really isn't libertarian.

The only thing Leninists have accomplished in this regard is to keep class society in tact, but shift things around so the exploiters are "benevolent" represenations of the working-class. Anarchists have in fact eliminated class society various times in the most visible ways, look at Catalonia during the civil war, thats far more of a libertarian society than the USSR was.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 11:12 pm
It's a nonsense word used to define Marxist-Leninists as somehow automatically "authoritarian".

Nobody has a monopoly on libertarian socialism. I am both a Marxist-Leninist and a social libertarian, as are nearly all Marxist-Leninists.
Same here. Many of the 'authoritarian' Marxist-Leninist leaders of the past were social libertarians. IE the Maoist revolution liberated woman, Bolshevik revolution legalized abortion, etc...

By authoritarian I asssume they mean the party-vanguard structure.

[bezdomni]

Anarchists have in fact eliminated class society various times in the most visible ways,
:lol:

You can't eliminate class society without international communist revolution! Anyway, Catalonia had what, a whopping three years of success? There were plenty of Marxist-Leninists there anyway. Perhaps you have heard of the POUM?


They don't have to "pretend", they honestly do think they are the representation of the working class.
They are the fucking working class. Why can't anarchists seem to get this through their heads?!


How do you define "salary".
The wage one makes. How else do you define it?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+November 29, 2006 11:19 pm--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ November 29, 2006 11:19 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2006 05:12 pm
It's a nonsense word used to define Marxist-Leninists as somehow automatically "authoritarian".

Nobody has a monopoly on libertarian socialism. I am both a Marxist-Leninist and a social libertarian, as are nearly all Marxist-Leninists.
Leninism is inherently authoritarian against the working class à la Lenin’s conception of class consciousness. For Lenin, class consciousness is ‘endowed’ by intellectuals upon the oppressed. And for Leninists, sometimes endowment means getting beat with the people’s stick. [/b]
hmmm since when did you become a straight up libsocialist? That is quite a silly analysis. The vanguard is a collection of class conscious workers. Leninism is a expansion on marxism in that it deals more specifically with how a revolution can be organized. Nothing is being 'endowed'.

[BreadBros]

You can't eliminate class society without international communist revolution!

What exactly are you saying? International capitalism is not a total system (although it may be moving in that direction, per Negri's "Empire"). It is possible to topple capitalism in one locale. Internationalism means the unity of the common worldwide proletarian struggle, it does not mean it's impossible for one geographic area to be more radicalized and revolutionary than another.


Anyway, Catalonia had what, a whopping three years of success?

Yes, and the actual period in which the USSR was any kind of real worker's state was just as short-lived.


There were plenty of Marxist-Leninists there anyway. Perhaps you have heard of the POUM?

The POUM was formed for the purpose of fighting the orthodox Marxist-Leninists in the PCE and eventually broke with Trotsky as well. Perhaps you've heard of the PCE, which did quite a bit to stop the revolutionary victories in Spain and ended up being completely wrong about the anarchist front as being bourgeois.


They are the fucking working class. Why can't anarchists seem to get this through their heads?!

I'm not an anarchist, but a better question would be why is it so difficult for Leninists to udnerstand that the political representation of the working class is not the working class itself. It is the formation of a new beauracratic class within society.


The wage one makes. How else do you define it?

Well if you were to read my full comment on that I said:

How do you define "salary". Maybe their official salary. The beuracratic class had greater access to luxury commodities than did the rest of society in the USSR.

Meaning that while on paper the salaries of officials may have been rather low, by their greater access to luxury goods and primacy in rationing of other goods, they were priveleged and a class society still existed in terms of commodities.

[ern]

Hi

Bread bros you say in response to Soviet pants

What exactly are you saying? International capitalism is not a total system (although it may be moving in that direction, per Negri's "Empire"). It is possible to topple capitalism in one locale. Internationalism means the unity of the common worldwide proletarian struggle, it does not mean it's impossible for one geographic area to be more radicalized and revolutionary than anothe
You are missing the point that Soviet pants is making which is

You can't eliminate class society without international communist revolution!
No one will deny that the revolution will not break out world wide all at once and overthrow the system all at the same time. There will probably be a wave of struggles and revolutions.
However, this is something very different to what Soviet pants is saying. Soviet pants is making one of the most important lessons of the last revolutionary wave (1917-1926) that until the ruling class is overthrown worldwide we cannot begin to eliminate class society. Obviously, the dictatorship of the proletariat will have to be in place in the revolutionary bastions. Nevertheless, the areas where the working class rules will still be faced with the domination of capitalism on a world level. Their whole activity will be centered on the spreading of the world revolution. Within these areas there will be workers councils etc, but there will also the other classes will still exist, as will the remains of the old bourgeoisie.
It is only once the ruling class has been overthrown world wide that the proletariat will be able to begin the enormous task of building communism.
The logic of the argument that rejects the need for the world revolution is stalinism's socialism in one country i.e., the submission of the proletariat to nationalism and national capital.
Bread Bros do you agree with the idea of socialism in one country?

[BreadBros]

No one will deny that the revolution will not break out world wide all at once and overthrow the system all at the same time. There will probably be a wave of struggles and revolutions.
However, this is something very different to what Soviet pants is saying. Soviet pants is making one of the most important lessons of the last revolutionary wave (1917-1926) that until the ruling class is overthrown worldwide we cannot begin to eliminate class society. Obviously, the dictatorship of the proletariat will have to be in place in the revolutionary bastions. Nevertheless, the areas where the working class rules will still be faced with the domination of capitalism on a world level.

First of all, I agree in your general view of how things will "play out". However, I disagree about not being able to overthrow class society in revolutionary bastions. What exactly do you think it is about the nature of this model that prevents revolutionary locales from overthrowing class society? If theres any lesson to be taken from the revolutionary wave of 1917-1926 (which was by far not the last revolutionary wave in society) its that class society must be overthrown in the revolutionary bastions as fast as possible. The remnants of class society in the USSR and affiliated Leninist countries precipitated the decline back into capitalist class society.


Their whole activity will be centered on the spreading of the world revolution. Within these areas there will be workers councils etc, but there will also the other classes will still exist, as will the remains of the old bourgeoisie.

Why? So far you've asserted things but you've provided no historical evidence for why revolutionary bastions should essentially wait for an international revolution before overthrowing class society in their own locales. The development of capitalism is equally advanced everywhere at once, in fact much of the world is in the infancy stages of capitalist development, expecting a world-wide revolution to flourish immediately is pointless. This just prolongues the existence of class society. Why on earth would you want to allow the old bourgeoisie to remain as a class in a supposed worker's state?


It is only once the ruling class has been overthrown world wide that the proletariat will be able to begin the enormous task of building communism.

Actually I think the proletariat will begin the "enormous task of building communism" when it finds itself able to, irregardless of whatever dogmas may be put forward in order to stall it.


The logic of the argument that rejects the need for the world revolution is stalinism's socialism in one country i.e., the submission of the proletariat to nationalism and national capital.
Bread Bros do you agree with the idea of socialism in one country?

First of all, I'm not arguing that should a proletarian revolution happen in one country we should focus on "solidifying" it there and forget international revolution. Of course international revolution should be vigorously pressed forward as among the main goals of any revolutionary society. What I'm arguing is that the proletariat should not wait for a worldwide revolution before overthrowing class society, it should begin from day one. So if you're asking if my beliefs coincide with Stalin's the answer is no.

As for Stalin's socialism in one country, if you want my opinion on that it's not favorable, however unlike you I don't consider it ultimate heresy. It was more or less a step taken with the failure of the revolutionary wave in Western Europe at the time and the need to prevent the collapse of the USSR. What was done seems to have been done because of historical necessity and I don't really see the point in speculation about what may have been since what may have been wasn't. To get back to my original point, part of the reason why "socialism in one country" failed so horribly is precisely because class society was not fully overthrown in the USSR and thus the capitalist commodity production in the country resulted in the subordination of the USSR's economy to international capitalist ties and interests. Thus my point that class society shoud be overthrown immediately and communist society begun.

[Janus]

Anyone have an explanation for why?
First of all, there are many definitions of socialism thus making it a vague term. Second, not all libertarian socialists are anarchists and not all of them oppose some form of central state organization.

[Cryotank Screams]

The vanguard is a collection of class conscious workers.

Correction, the vanguard is a collection of class conscious rulers.

[ern]

Hi Bread bros.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I do not have time at the moment to give an appropriately detailed reply. However, I would like to make two brief points;
1. Obviously in the revolutionary bastions the working class will have imposed its dictatorship over the other classes and the bourgeoisie will have been removed from power. But capitalism is a world wide system and its laws will still dominate: for example there will be the need to purchase materials from other countries etc. Also unless you plan exterminating, a la Pol Pot, the other classes the peasants, small traders and even small business will still exist. It will take many decades, even after the world revolution, to fully integrate the other classes into the process of building communism.
2. Stalinism, as you say was the product of the isolation of the revolution, however to say

if you want my opinion on that it's not favorable, however unlike you I don't consider it ultimate heresy seems to me to miss the point about Stalinism: that it was the executioner of the revolution. Yes the revolution was isolated and thus doomed to die. Stalinism was the expression of this death. Also the slogan of socialism in one country marked the death of the international and the acceleration of the process of the integration of the CPs into the national capitals and ultimately the imperialist slaughter of WW2, where millions were massacred in the name of defending the socialist fatherland. This "not favorable" slogan also served as justification of Stalin's terror.
Bread may be I am not fully understanding your understanding of Stalinism, so can I ask a simple question: do you see Stalinism as being counter-revolutionary?